D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Gimby]

In any case, in all other editions a monster's hit points and abilities are intrinsic to it and don't change based on its surroundings and-or the company it is keeping.

This isn't true - it wasn't common but swarms and mobs also had this property. And for the same reason - to keep a certain monster relevant at higher levels while putting a cap on mechanical complexity. It's an example where 4e made a difference in degree, but not of kind.

 

[Lanefan]

First is you stop caring about the “metagame”.

Sorry, but for a bunch of reasons that's a complete non-starter.

Second, you telegraph danger ahead of time. Or at the very least, you establish what the likely risk is, the stakes of the roll. You let the player know “okay this sounds like a Stealth roll… what’s at risk here is discovery, so don’t fail!” and then you have them roll. I would likely be a bit more descriptive in the nature of the discovery… but that may not be necessary.

Then they roll, and if they fail, you already know the consequences… so you follow through on that.

My issue with that would be if (or when, as it's a very frequent occurrence) the risk is something as yet unknown to the character. Not everything can be or should be telegraphed; and telling the player the risk when it isn't telegraphed is giving the player information the character doesn't and can't (yet) have, which in my books is bad DMing because you're putting the player in a position of having to ignore that metagame knowledge in order to play the character true.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You seem to locate the differences in the interests of the players. (Something others appear to have also implied.)

Supposing that were right, is there no way to recognise a set of rules that would support some set of interests above others? (@Enrahim this question, too.)

Let's suppose a game, let's call it a PbtA, where the interest is centered outside the characters. That is, while the action is still character focused, how they deal with the premise, that premise is something beyond the personal. It could be a fantasy game in which the overwhelming consideration was, say, Moorcockian order vs chaos. Everything the PCs do will relate to that, every goal they set, and every significant part of the fiction will bear on it. Even the traits and backstory of the characters will be in relation to this single question. Is this not classic Narrativist play? I think so. I think many Narrativist games have this kind of element to them.

 

[TwoSix]

I was absolutely paying attention to those changes, and I don't at all agree. An alternative development path that worked to address 3e's problems without giving up on PC/NPC transparency seemed totally viable, even at the time. My relative youth might have been a factor (I technically played some 2e, but realistically 3e was when I got invested), in that I took 3e's unified rule structure as just a normal D&D thing, but that felt like a sea change. That simply was outside the solution space I'd conceptualized for trying to deal with the design problems.

I would have to go back and look, but I think the 3e DMG2 and MM4 and MM5 were moving in the direction of more simplified stat blocks, or at least discussing it.

It was certainly a fairly prevalent topic in various discussion sites throughout most of later 3.5.

 

[bloodtide]

My issue with that would be if (or when, as it's a very frequent occurrence) the risk is something as yet unknown to the character. Not everything can be or should be telegraphed; and telling the player the risk when it isn't telegraphed is giving the player information the character doesn't and can't (yet) have, which in my books is bad DMing because you're putting the player in a position of having to ignore that metagame knowledge in order to play the character true.

Much of the time, like 75% of the time, the character would be 100% clueless about the risks or chances.

The big, huge problem is many players feel they should have a perfect all knowing view of the game, like a DM. And then the player, knowing everything exactly, will decide what actions the character can take. Most of the time, the player wants the conformation of "yes, no matter what it will work", so they can roll and not care and just say "made it".

It's a lot like the false "know it all risk" players get from things like CR.

 

[zakael19]

I gotta say, AW is pretty strong about wanting things to stay in character, and DW is also rather explicit here. But that being said, the GM should address the PCs, not necessarily IC through another character. Still, when asked a question, the player should be answering in character. The focus should be tight on the characters. There's nothing like some side channel of talk. Not until EOS.

It's far more implied in AW (eg: talking about asking questions and building on them, that's not 1st person answers a lot of the time, the moves that are full of meta-channel stuff like the "Read A...", talking about turning questions back onto the group at large, etc); but most newer games are far more explicit about the "around the table" side of the conversation. BITD onward especially you generally see a straight up "Keep the Meta Channel Open" entry in the GM side of things. Now, you're pretty much always addressing the characters to make it clear that the answer should be from the character's POV or is emanating from their understanding of the world, but the conversation itself is going meta for a bit - and of course FITD games have a lot more procedures with greater or lesser degrees of fictional entanglement you're talking through.

I think that generally Blades looked at all the pitfalls of new PBTA play and tried to address a lot of them via design and guidance (AW's guidance being intentionally provocative and somewhat obtuse at times for people walking into that space of the hobby).

 

[zakael19]

Another very realistic narration for failing a climb is that the climber in effect gets stuck in place; there's no safe way forward but climbing back down doesn't look safe either. As a kid I put myself in this position more times than I care to think about.

sounds like a lesser success/reduced effect to me.

In fact a core example in blades (or scum and villainy or both?) is not being able to make it all the way across a guarded courtyard in a single sneaky prowl.

A think I like about FITD games is you can make that an outcome, and then ask the player if they want to burn their Stress to resist it - narrating out what that looks like.

One reason I'm super excited about DH is it taking lots of classic D&D nonsense and adding a couple extra consumable resources that let you push scenes forward while staying grounded in fictionally appropriate conversation.

 

[AlViking]

Sorry, but for a bunch of reasons that's a complete non-starter.

My issue with that would be if (or when, as it's a very frequent occurrence) the risk is something as yet unknown to the character. Not everything can be or should be telegraphed; and telling the player the risk when it isn't telegraphed is giving the player information the character doesn't and can't (yet) have, which in my books is bad DMing because you're putting the player in a position of having to ignore that metagame knowledge in order to play the character true.

Seems to me that there's a spectrum of people who view the game we play as trying to play from the perspective of our character where for other people the character as just an avatar used to play the game. I know I always try to put myself in the shoes of the character, other people couldn't seem to care less.

 

[pemerton]

But clearly none of them fulfilled the "promise of D&D" in your estimation, so you by definition must have been at least disappointed in all your D&D play prior to its release.

As I posted upthread, I think I know my mental states better than you do.

 

[zakael19]

Much of the time, like 75% of the time, the character would be 100% clueless about the risks or chances.

The big, huge problem is many players feel they should have a perfect all knowing view of the game, like a DM. And then the player, knowing everything exactly, will decide what actions the character can take. Most of the time, the player wants the conformation of "yes, no matter what it will work", so they can roll and not care and just say "made it".

It's a lot like the false "know it all risk" players get from things like CR.

Most of the time when we attempt something IRL that carries risk, we know what the risks are at least to a general level.

If you go driving and crash, you knew that crashing was on the table (I hope). If you're climbing a climbing wall beyond your skill, you know you might stall out and have to rest for a while or even lose grip and fall (hence harnesses and mats). If you're riding a mountain bike and something runs out in front of you, or you hit a root you didn't expect, or whatever and you eat it, that's a risk you knew you were running. If you're lifting weights you know that doing it badly can cause muscle damage. If you're fighting somebody even in sport, you know injury is possible. If you're a skilled soldier executing an assault exercise, you know that the risks are you get noticed before you get to teh optimal space.

All Stakes are is an open understanding of what the character should know about in the fiction (eg: "two ticks on an Alerted clock" is really "the guards you see patrolling around around hear a strange noise and go on edge").

Edit: and no, playing all the games I play right now that arent 5e none of my players want to know "will this just succeed." They just want to confirm what they'll get if successful. Some of the systems I run make the downside clear with every action (mainly FITD using the Threat Roll), some dont.